Heard the learned advocate appearing for the

appellants and the learned advocate appearing for the

respondent-Insurance Company.

MFA No. 101422 of 2019 is filed by the claimants in

MVC No.245 of 2015 on the file of the Addl.MACT, Kumta

challenging the judgment and award dated 28.11.2018.

In the aforesaid case, the appellants are seeking

enhancement of compensation. Also impugning the same

judgment and award, MFA No.100932 of 2019 is filed by the

insurer.

The

tribunal

has

awarded

a

compensation

of

Rs.22,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of payment.

4.

The insurer is challenging the liability as well as the

quantum. The liability is challenged on the ground that the

vehicle involved in the accident did not have necessary route

permit. The insurer has also questioned the quantum on the

ground that the income of the deceased at Rs.24,000/- per

month as assessed by the tribunal is on higher side and not

acceptable.

- 5 -

5.

The first question that arises for consideration is

whether the vehicle involved in the accident was plying on the

permitted route? Ex.R7 is the document produced by the

insurer. Ex.R7 reveals that there was permit to ply the vehicle

from Mumbai to Mangalore via Puna-Kollapur-Belgaum-Ankola-

Udupi-Mangalore. Ex.R7 would also reveal that as on the date

of the accident, the vehicle had permit to ply on the aforesaid

road. From the route mentioned in Ex.R7, it is apparent that

the vehicle was plying on the permitted route and the accident

had occurred when the vehicle was plying on the permitted

route. Under these circumstances, by referring to the very said

document produced by the insurer, this Court is of the view

that there is no violation of route permit as such, the insurer is

liable to pay compensation.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants as well

as the learned counsel for the respondent-insurer have also

addressed their arguments justifying the grounds urged in the

respective appeal memorandums relating to quantum of

compensation awarded by the tribunal.

7.

The tribunal primarily placed reliance on Exs.P9 and

10, the income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15

- 6 -

and 2015-16. The accident admittedly occurred on 02.04.2015

and on account of said accident, Prasad S/o.Chandrakant Naik,

rider of the bike died in the accident. On perusal of Exs.9 and

10, it is apparent that income tax returns were submitted

subsequent to the death of Prasad Naik. Income tax returns for

assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 15.08.2015 and income

tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on

23.05.2015. No documents produced to show the returns filed

prior to his death. The income as on the date of death of Prasad

is to be considered for calculating loss of dependency.

8.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would

submit that the deceased-Prasad was a businessman dealing in

BSNL SIM card as well as currency recharge cards. It is urged

that he was also involved in Cement Business. To substantiate

the contention, the claimants have produced Original Form VAT

146 and certificate issued by AGM of BSNL, Karwar. Exs.P5 and

P6 are the certificates issued by ACC Cements for the year

2010 and 2013. It is the submission of the learned counsel for

the appellants/claimants that these documents would indicate

that deceased Prasad was a businessman having income.

Income tax returns, which are shown at Exs.P9 and 10, the

- 7 -

Court perused Exs.P9 and 10 the income tax returns for the

assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, which are in the

name of Prasad Agencies, Gullapur. Prasad died on 02.04.2015

i.e. prior to filing of income tax returns.

9.

Learned counsel for the insurer Sri.Rajashekhar

Arani would submit that though the documents produced

relating to ACC Cements dealership held by deceased Prasad

and certificate issued by BSNL to establish the dealership, the

claimants/appellants have not produced any documents to

substantiate the in